Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> If the new language requires a completely different architecture it is
> unlikely to be adopted. Or maybe it is adopted, but the accessibility
> features are not being put to use. I think it will be easier for
> features to become adopted if they don't require a lot of rethinking,
> but rather can be incrementally deployed. I think that's one of the
> reasons it's important to look how authors are solving problems now.
Providing fallback inside the new proposed <video> and <audio> elements
is no different from fallback inside <object>, so architecture-wise I
see no difference.
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
______________________________________________________________
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
______________________________________________________________
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
______________________________________________________________
Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team
http://streetteam.webstandards.org/
______________________________________________________________